Monday, June 30, 2008

Anatomy of a Win

Scalia ignored the first part of the second amendment switching the right of the people to the right of the individual and the happiness of the National Rifle Association and its members.

I hope Scalia is informed of the quantity and names of the people who will die as a result of his ignoring the clear intent of the Constitution in keeping a militia armed to protect the group of "We the people" rather than the individuals who will now possess guns to use according to their individual discretion.

Those Bush guys sure have dragged down the country in more ways than any of us can count.

No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . .. Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia -- and in just about every city in the nation, big or small -- there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

[T]hese pragmatic judgments underestimate how radical this decision is in light of the operating precedents of the past 69 years. The United States and its gun owners have done perfectly well since 1939, when an earlier Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as implying a collective right to bear arms, but not an individual right.

It seems theoretically plausible to suggest that, now that an individual right of some sort . . . has been recognized by the Court, that this right is now one which the ACLU should actively defend under its general mission of defending the Bill of Rights. This reasoning may become more compelling in the future, too, as future cases elaborate on the now-murky incorporation questions that Heller didn't really answer.

On the other hand, the culture-wars aspect of the debate might suggest otherwise. And I wonder whether those pragmatic considerations will win out -- whether the organization will take a different tack and hold, essentially, that Heller is wrong.

Links to this post:

40 Comments:

Beautiful job, and have fun with the pistol.

I do want to thank you, because I fear the penumbras and the emanations of the living Constitution and Breyer's "active liberty" would have overcome the obvious text of the Second if Alito had not been on the court.

So you and all of the other adamant opposition were correct in rejecting Meyers. I just wanted to state that here.

What about able-bodied females between 17 and 45? Females should not be allowed to own guns?

So do you think people over the age of 45 should not be allowed to own guns?

I wonder how you will feel when you read the new statistics on "accidental" gun deaths and suicides. Do you think there might be some changes in those numbers in the future after this assinine Supreme Court decision is implemented?

Anonymous: interesting, but unimaginative twist. What we have here is yet another person capable of reading history, but seemingly incapable of learning anything from it save a few important dates and names.

For starters, you might want to see if "well regulated" meant something entirely different to those who wrote it than it does to you. Along those lines, you might be interested to learn who equipped the majority of the Continental Army's soldiers with their weapons.

I see from your comments that you are as familiar with history as you are with contemporaneous issues. Remember all the dire predictions of blood-baths and so forth that were proclaimed would be the result of letting the "assault weapons" ban sunset?

You've been given a few clues to knowledge, but I suspect you prefer ignorance. Suit yourself--ignorance is bliss, right?

Just a friendly warning, Carl: for many of us, there is no such thing as getting A pistol. These darn things have a way of multiplying, while dividing our money from us.....And that's without even getting into rifles and shotguns.....

Separately, on my continuing careen down the slippery slope of conservatism, I actually followed the Ann Coulter link you provided. She sounds like such an idiot on TV, I was pleasantly surprised at her writing.

Anonymous, like all libtards, you focus only on costs and not on benefits.

I did a simple calculation about 10 years ago, which did a simple extrapolation of gun deaths in the USA vs. gun deaths in the entire world, were the entire world to have gun access, and gun deaths, as the USA does (probably conservative, the USA has a more violent civilian culture than many nations)

Since 1920, the estimate of worldwide deaths was 12,000,000.

A lot, right?

Well, in that same time frame, not less than 100,000,000 have died by out of control governments. That is civilians only at the hands of their own governments. It does not include additional military deaths in pursuit of setting those governments to right, which would be on the order of 30,000,000 or more.

Governments get out of control because their people have no ability to resist the depredations of same. The government of the USA cannot get out of control as long as the people have guns, because it's quite clear that any attempt to do so would result in an armed insurrection, and the politicans know it. They'd be too busy ducking assassins' bullets to savor their stolen power.

So they don't even try.

So, frankly, if we had to trade 12 million lives to save 100-200 million, I'd prepared to make that choice, and anyone not an idiot should be, too.

In every place where concealed carry has been legalized, crime goes down.

And if you think outlawing guns here will lower crime, I suggest you check the crime stats in the UK and Australia after they outlawed them. Crime has been on the rise, steadily. In Australia, crimes against women and the elderly have radically increased -- because young, tough thugs know that they will be unable to put up any resistance.

In the USA, 80% of home robberies take place when the victims are NOT home. This is because the thieves know that they have a huge chance of getting their asses blown off if someone is home when they break in. In the UK, that stat is reverese -- because the thugs KNOW that there is no chance of such an event, and if the owner is home, they can be forced to tell them where the valuables are.

As bad as it is to have your home robbed, to be there when it happens has got to be a hell of a lot worse.

I'll keep my right to have a gun in the house. And the really great part is, I don't have to actually OWN a gun to benefit from that right.

Superb post. There is little sound more enjoyable than listening to the lamentations of the left. As to those who rely on the 1939 Miller case, anyone who claims that case was precedent for a collective, rather than an individual right is either being wholly disingenuous or has never read the case. At any rate, linked. http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/06/interesting-posts-from-around-web-1_30.html

P.S., a) I don't currently own a gunb) As a result of this ruling, I feel substantiall *less* need to go out and buy one. I would assert that there are others like me, as well. "Better get one now before they take The Right away"

So that's one *less* gun.

Of course, it won't show up on Anon's stats as a positive benefit of the ruling.

I have only a small row house to defend, so I think one Sig-Sauer should do.

Sure. That's what we *all* say in the beginning. Sometimes it even works out that way.

But remember this: Sometimes guns break. You are looking at a very highly regarded brand, but it still happens. So you should have a backup, because it can take weeks to get a gun shipped to the maker, fixed and shipped back.

Also if - we hope for the best but plan for the worst - you do have to use the gun, even in the most obviously legitimate case, even the most legitimate police will take the involved weapon as evidence. The assailant - or his survivors or friends - will be on the street long before that gun comes back.

So really, you should have 3.

And we're not even into the SHTF scenarios that could come out of the current financial fiasco playing out so hideously in NY and DC. For that, God made AKs....

Bob - I know a guy who started collecting old tractors and now has more than two hundred of them. There's something about men and metal.... I saw a story once about some guy in the NE who had a barn full of old toaster ovens.

The people I know with a lot of guns are pure collectors, and a lot of the weapons are not for shooting.

The Chief has thousands of golf clubs, so I think you should seek therapy once you pass the 40 mark.

Do not know why you confident people did not address yourselves to: "What about able-bodied females between 17 and 45? Females should not be allowed to own guns?

So do you think people over the age of 45 should not be allowed to own guns?"

You only use historical resources to support your preconceived conclusions.

Perhaps you are right and I am wrong. We'll see. I assume you will have the integrity to admit you are wrong, if you find the facts vary from your predictions. Or maybe you will just focus on a different subject because you find it too excruciatingly painful to acknowledge that you could be incorrect about anything.

Do not know why you confident people did not address yourselves to: "What about able-bodied females between 17 and 45? Females should not be allowed to own guns?

You're still missing the point. It is our individual membership in the group known as "the people", not the militia, that gives us our right to keep and bear arms. Go back and read the syllabus - the Militia is mentioned in the prefatory clause, not the operative clause. The prefatory clause neither limits nor expands the operative clause.

Oh, come on. MOM, let's not be sexist. Let us not forget Imelda Marcos. "Collecting" is a human behavior, not just a male one.

> Do not know why you confident people did not address yourselves to: "What about able-bodied females between 17 and 45? Females should not be allowed to own guns?So do you think people over the age of 45 should not be allowed to own guns?"

Because the point was beneath contempt. It's playing on the standard of the militia as the final defenders of the nation and the inherent prejudices of the time, which we all ack are bygone.Males over 45 are often able, more so than back then when life was harsher and 45 was typically the age of death. Females need less protection when there are 300 million people in a nation rather than 4 million, plus guns require far less might to use and operate since the late 1800s, so they, too, can certainly act as part of such a defense. And the presence of Israeli women in their army shows that women are fully capable of the job, as well.

In short, there is clearly no reason to exclude any of those groups from this collective term now (if there ever was), any more than we exclude 18yo, or women, or blacks, from voting. One presumes the 2nd Amendment expanded to them at around the same time as franchise was extended to them -- and we more than ack all rights probably should have been conferred upon them explicitly from the beginning.

Sorry, we considered this to be pretty much "Duh", but since you seem to think the point is serious, I'll spell it out for you:

> I assume you will have the integrity to admit you are wrong, if you find the facts vary from your predictions.

Ah, but the question to me is, do YOU have the integrity to come back here (feel free to pick a new post and make an OT comment, if Carl doesn't have a problem with it, as I think he would not) and admit that YOU were wrong, as well?

Or send Carl a followup you think disproves it, if you encounter such, and, if he thinks it worthy, we'll hash it out again -- because, to be honest, I don't necessarily trust whatever sources you listen to as likely to be particularly honest. The Left, on certain matters, is certainly as dishonest as the Right on others, generally more so. The Right has a certain respect for the Truth, and as such, is constrained to those things it can rationalize within that context. The Left believes in "higher truths" and can rationalize "2+2=5 (except where it needs to be =3)" as it suits them. And so doesn't grasp the absurdity behind speaking "Truthiness to Power".

BTW, my justification for the above doubt on any claims is, among other experiences, this. The left has shown, time and again, the willingness to risk careers and professional integrity to promote a lie. So one needs to subject any claims to particularly sharp vetting for accuracy and reliability.

BTW -- this is over on wiki -- since it is largely sourced, you can take it for what it is worth.

=============================

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics (source here):

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

In addition (not from the above report):

Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data.

Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled. In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including soft air guns). Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.

Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997. A study published in 2001 shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths.

Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

The majority of the above stats all have citations indicating source. Feel free to investigate if you want, the article is here.

I didn't respond because it's a profoundly stupid argument. My point was that the contemporaneous definition showed that the Militia was not limited to organized bodies. The particular composition of the unorganized group is irrelevant. I note that you didn't respond to a host of my points, e.g., the combination of the Cruikshank case and Blackstone--does that mean you've conceded the point?

This is another specious argument. Compare the suicide rates (mid-90s data here) in the United States with Japan (where guns are almost non-existent). I was careful not to claim that the jump in DC gun deaths since the 1976 handgun ban was the fault of that ban. But your argument is mere post hoc ergo propter hoc--it confuses chicken and egg.

> Compare the death-by-gun rate in London and Washington, DC. Notice anything significant?

Again, you focus only on one thing, and that thing itself is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

a) It's irrelevant, BUT: "Deaths" is only one element of the problem. The right of people to be secure in their persons and possessions is relevant, too. Guns are a part of that security, even if we don't SEE all the benefits of it. More critically, I want to see a breakdown of those deaths. I really, really don't give a rat's ass about a bunch of f***ing gang bangers killing each other. I would only care about a gun death if it involved innocents. Yes, those are higher, too. But there are balancing factors which you continue, repeatedly, to ignore -- "does this mean you concede the point?" -- CRIME overall -- particularly violent crimes, goes **UP** where guns are unavailable. Because thugs know THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE SAFER. It's not "Gun Control", as they say, it's "Victim Disarmament". It's "Thug Reassurance Policy" -- Every life saved by a gun, every woman NOT raped thanks to a gun -- THIS statistic is unavailable. So your specially designed picture of what guns are -- even in this irrelevant context -- is STILL incorrect. You look at one narrow result, not the whole picture. You weight one single component of the issue, not the entire mix of problems and solutions which apply.

b) THIS is the relevant part which you STILL have not addressed for a single iota of response, in your desperate attempt to hammer away at the one narrow range of the argument (regardless of its irrelevancy) which you can find any semblance of a win -- "does this mean you concede the point?" : GUN POSSESSION IS NOT ABOUT CRIME OR HEALTH.

This is a typical liberal bait and switch -- you can't win on the merits so you want to switch the basis for argument to one where you have any chance of winning. And all too many people fall for this hoary trick.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is about keeping their own government to heel.

Nothing else.

It is specifically and exactly about protecting themselves, in the end, from an overreaching and overbearing tyrant risen to power through subtlety and trickery.

That is the expressly stated premise upon which the citizens of the USA voted for the Contitution in the very first place.

And, as I've noted above, the worst case scenario for gun deaths is a small fraction of the deaths resulting from out of control governments. So, put simply, the issue, despite your determination to ignore it, results in an obvious conclusion:

Maintaining control of the government is much -- MUCH -- more important than it is to worry about individual misuse of guns.

The Fed has enough contempt for us as it is. There's no need to hand them the complete power to ignore us.

A Monarch's neck should always have a noose about it... It keeps him upright. - Robert Heinlein, 'The Cat Who Walks Through Walls' -

Among other things, being disarmed causes you to be despised. - Machiavelli -

I don't expect you to be as smart as Machiavelli and figure it out on your own, but it might be smart to listen to what he says and think -- long and hard -- on it.

> It seems theoretically plausible to suggest that, now that an individual right of some sort . . . has been recognized by the Court, that this right is now one which the ACLU should actively defend under its general mission of defending the Bill of Rights.

Uh, yeah, right.

I see that happening, I'll be out buying stock in heavy duty umbrella producers.

I mean, people are gonna need some protection against the pig droppings falling from the sky.

Compare the death-by-gun rate in London and Washington, DC. Notice anything significant?

I noticed that you chose to compare 2 cities with complete or nearly complete gun bans, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Did you even bother to look at the Gun Facts link I posted previously? There are a lot more sensible comparisons in there. Like comparisons between American cities and states with and without concealed-carry. Like comparisons of the states or cities as they increase or decrease the freedom to keep an bear arms, over time. These stats say: More guns in the hands of the law-abiding == less violent crime. Gun control does exactly the opposite, putting proportionately more guns in the hands of the law-breaking.

bobn, don't let them frame it in those terms. That is playing their game.

There's nothing in the 2nd about that, nor is there anything of "crime" or wrongdoing by individuals in the Federalist #46.

They have nothing to do with why that Right is there -- they do have to do with why they want to change the dialog, because they can make appeals to emotion over crime (regardless of how statistically accurate) and they have a chance of winning if reason is excluded from the argument.

Make a point about their issue, but always -- Keep pushing the debate back to where it belongs:

The clear, inarguable reason why we have this Right. Why the Founders chose to explicitly elaborate on it.

bobn, don't let them frame it in those terms. That is playing their game.

There's nothing in the 2nd about that, nor is there anything of "crime" or wrongdoing by individuals in the Federalist #46.

OBH, I agree with you regarding the 2nd.

But we've already demolished Anonymous on those points.

And there are those of good faith (but faulty understanding and knowledge) who are concerend with the lives of innocents, so it is worth rebutting his nonsense.

Unfortunately, if this is the same Anony as this loser from the original post, it's a losing battle to convince him/her/it - they are immune to logic and facts. But I think it's still worth it for the record, if nothing else.

Of course. As I've commented in other places, and probably here at one point or another:

The discussion is not intended to convince the original poster of jack. If they are honest and open-minded, then great, but I never assume such. I write for two main reasons -- A) For my own benefit. Not only is the mental exercist effective, it also forces me to re-examine the foundations of my position to verify that the passing of time has not invalidated any of them, and B) For the benefit of other readers who honestly care about good reasoning and facts surrounding the issue at hand. By exposing them to the arguments I'm making, they have a reasonable chance to make up their own minds as far as the validity of both my position as well as that of my opponent.

> But we've already demolished Anonymous on those points.

True, BUT... this is why I argue it's good to handle as an aside (above: "a) It's irrelevant, BUT: ...") -- but then always -- repeat: always -- bring it back to the chief principle, with "b)".

You cannot hammer that point home enough. The idiots in the oppositing will try and ignore it as constantly as they can, but if you keep hammering at it even their own 48" armor plate will start to crack.

This is one of the reasons the "conservatives" have faltered in the last few years (only one of several but still an important one) -- they've gotten tired, and stopped hammering away at the message, which yields the field to the libtards with their BDS-fueled rants, and gives them no opposition.

Ya can't do it. You have to hammer them, and keep hammering them.

If you want to spike Obama, you have to keep on hammering at the issues until even they are forced to acknowledge them -- and they will be. The media tried for months to ignore the Swift Boat Vets -- only by tossing it in their face over and over again did it penetrate their pea-sized mentalities that this was not going to go away.

Obama already has several of these points of weakness -- and if you let the media ignore them, they will. So we just can't let that happen.

Obama needs to be called out, time and again, on his racism, his ignorance and naivete, his lack of any sort of executive experience, his ever-increasing list of flip-flops (which will only increase exponentially as he tries to shift his policy position from far left to middle-of-the-road to look [utterly falsely, mind you] as though he is some sort of centrist).

He's a walking target. We need to ding him like a $10,000 target duck at a cheap carnival when a gun show is also in town. And keep dinging him until everyone knows what we know -- that he's as wrong a choice as anyone the Dems have ever put up. And I do mean "ever".

What scares me is the number of damnfools who think his winning is "inevitable" -- would this be the same kind of "inevitable" as Hillary was?I say yes, it damned sure is.

True, BUT... this is why I argue it's good to handle as an aside (above: "a) It's irrelevant, BUT: ...") -- but then always -- repeat: always -- bring it back to the chief principle, with "b)".

Here is a thought I had. It comes out of discussing the Heller ruling with my brother.

My brother has shot clays several times and liked it. He has expressed interest in coming out pistol shooting with me. He is pretty liberal, but he is a person you can talk to reasonably. He was unhappy with Heller. He said of the 2nd amendment: "This was written 200 years ago by guys in wigs. The Court shouldn't be overruling local laws." I pointed out that DC was under Federal jurisdiction.

When I brought up the point that the 14th amendment could extend this decision to states, he brusquely replied "I don't care. I just don't care about the 14th amendment." I noted that the original purpose of the 14th was to extend the Constitutional Rights to freed slaves who were denied them by local laws in southern states and he calmed down a bit.

But here's what I realized a few days later: you can't get very far telling people that the safety of themselves and their children is "irrelevant". Especially regarding the children, they just won't buy it. Many people *will* "trade an essential liberty" (whose pupose they don't really understand) for the perception (however wrong) of a little more safety for their kids. They won't think twice as long as as they think that more guns == more danger.

If we really want to win this battle (for me, winning would be concealed or open carry as "shall issue" everywhere and gun ownership permitted to all competent, law-abiding cictizens), we cannot afford to fight this battle on one front and ignore or disparage the other.

Luckily, the facts are on our side in the safety and crime arguments as well. We must trumpet these facts at every opportunity. That is why I keep linking to Gun Facts.

Finally, just for the fun of it, I will argue that personal defense from crime is not irrelevant. Scalia said that the prefatory cause creates a purpose, but does not limit the operative clause. As St. George Tucker wrote of the right to keep and bear arms: "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature...". Though he goes on to talk about government, I think this statement stands on it's own.

So then you agree that able-bodied females between 17 and 45 and females of any age should not be allowed to own guns or do you choose to ignore the historical language that fails to support your prejudices.

I presume you think people over the age of 45 should not be allowed to own guns, since you choose to be "historically" correct.

Little boys need their toys. Too bad you can't use your creativity to solve problems instead of guns. Maybe just the "bad" people will be shot as a result of the Heller decision. I guess that's what you are thinking.

So then you agree that able-bodied females between 17 and 45 and females of any age should not be allowed to own guns or do you choose to ignore the historical language that fails to support your prejudices.

I presume you think people over the age of 45 should not be allowed to own guns, since you choose to be "historically" correct.

Held:1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm fortraditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Translation: The preservation of the Militia was a purpose of the non-infirngement of the right to keep and bear arms, but that right does not flow from the Militia or depend in any way upon it's composition.

And a good thing, too - some women are damn fine marksmen.

Anonymous further blathers:

Little boys need their toys.

Ad-hominem attacks - the final refuge of the hopelessly outmatched.

Anonymous again:

Too bad you can't use your creativity to solve problems instead of guns.

Yeah, if somebody breaks into my house after dark, and is armed, I'll be sure to paint a picture denoting how wrong their actions are - that'll stop them right in their tracks.

Most of the "creative solutions" I can imagine are the kind most people would find to be associated with National Socialist ideals. Kind of like outlawing guns. That was one of their ideals, too.

If you are so utterly sure that there are better ones, feel free to enlighten us. Just realize that we WILL expect them to be cognizant of human nature and behavior, and not firmly rooted on the Lefty's Personal Cloud Nine.

> Maybe just the "bad" people will be shot as a result of the Heller decision.

I'm sure some "good" people will be shot as a result of the Heller decision.

I suspect that some "good" people will be shot by cops, too. You figure that's a good reason to disarm cops? Why are cops so special to you?

> I guess that's what you are thinking.

Now if only we could manage to get you actually thinking. Yeah, I suspect that's a lost cause. Pretty certain of it, so far, since you've yet to actually dig out any statistics to prove your point that don't ignore critical other points which we've addressed.

You just keep those blinders on, and ... hey, sooner or later, the whole world will be a Candyland Paradise!

In concession of complete defeat on all other topics, Anonymous bleats:

Let women be women instead of having to adjust to male-designed and male-dominated institutions. Women have a different approach.

Tell that to Ms. Valinda Rowe, who has been much of the force behind illinoiscarry.com since she was stalked and, by Illinois law, denied the the right to effective self-defense ouside her home. Tell it the the many other women who were less fortunate and died at the hands of stalking/predatory men. Gun control is racist, sexist and favor criminals over the law abiding.

Too bad your ageism and sexism and lack of imagination kept the one qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton out of the White House.

Yeah, at least one good thing happened this election cycle. Just for your info, I've voted Democrat for everything since 1980. This year is still a toss-up, but I *know* I would have voted *against* Hillary.